Literacy Limps Into the Kill Zone
Wired News: Literacy Limps Into the Kill Zone.
I thought I was the only one who noticed… Oh my parents seem to have noticed a milder version of it years ago, when I was a child…. Hmmmmmm…
Recent Comments
Evil Functions
Support the EFF!
Email addresses to be harvested for spam. Do not use these!
Recent Comments
Evil Functions
Support the EFF!
February 20th, 2006
I’m glad my grandparents (both teachers) aren’t around to experience the newest version of mutilation of the english language.
“But it’s not enough to simply vomit out of your fingers. It’s important to say what you mean clearly, correctly and well. It’s important to maintain high standards. It’s important to think before you write.”
I think that about sums it up.
February 20th, 2006
I’m about done reading a fascinating book titled, “Everything Bad Is Good For You”, by Steven Johnson. He is also a contributor to Wired Magazine among others. He makes some good arguments and gives good examples to support his argument that popular culture has many more benefits than it does detriments. He even goes so far as to acknowledge that there are some forms of communication that still are better served in book form. I’ve just begun the portion of the book dealing with this idea and related ones which he makes in defense of books and other older forms of communication. I suspect a good debate could be had between these two writers on the matter of new forms such as the online chat. Without having finished the book, it is safe to say I’m sufficiently convinced to be more charitable toward new forms and popular culture than has been the case. Unless you are simply looking for opinions to substantiate your conclusions, give this book a whirl before drawing any conclusions. It is available in libraries, as that is where the copy I’m reading came into my possession.
This having been offered, I will say that I am very disappointed with the perceived decline in good writing. I see plenty of poor writing, but I might be better able to make the case that we’ve always suffered it, but it is more readily available because of new outlets for it which are not regulated by editors and publishers. It has been my experience that most people communicate poorly, especially in written forms. They find it difficult to say what they mean in a clear way that may easily be understood by others. I could write a book about why I think this is the case, but I’d rather not bore you. Boredom is, in fact, part of the problem. Proper English grammar and syntax bore most people so they do what they must when confronted with it in school and drop it like a hot rock once the passing grade is in hand. Given this, and the lack of regulators, it is easy to see so fluid a language as English change in ways that certainly look like degradation on the page or screen. Even if you were born as late as 1980, think of the many new words that have only come into usage since that time. How about new forms of media, often described using the new words? Change tends to leave its mark on all things, and if its pace is quick, as it has been the past 150 years, much will change to the point of no longer being recognizable, or will fall out of common use & knowledge. Language must follow changes, whether perceived as good or bad, or it dies and is replaced by something else deemed better suited for coping with change. French was the language of diplomacy and law for a very long time. The reason for this is that the language was in a period where such change was able to occur. Today, it is a different story for French. With government sanction and funding, the language is protected from outside influence and change, in much the way that dead objects are protected by museums. Did you know that when common terms for personal computers were being accepted in English regardless of the language of the user, the French insisted on their own terms. Very few people know or care because no one, including many French, use them because the rest of the world has accepted the ascendancy of English terms. English also has supplanted French for legal and diplomatic purposes, though the UN continues to give it a nod as one might to an old man passed each day on your way somewhere.
My point, if there is one to be found in that mess, is that many changes to a language may be perceived as unpleasant or damaging, but as change they are better than ossification and death. Latin, for instance, is considered a dead language. That is precisely why it was chosen for use within the medical and legal professions. The terms are fixed and not likely to change from cultural or other influences. This works well when you want a common platform for expressing the same notions and arguments over & over again. It doesn’t when you have to take into consideration people and change.
February 20th, 2006
I find your comment not only to be insightful but also to be worded with impressive, almost “Olde World”, craftsmanship. ;-)
(Note the now tragically unhip usage of an emoticon, which I consider to be an adjunct to, not a substitution for, written communication)
My problem (as it has always been) is with excessive commas, run-on sentences, along with a seemingly limitless gift for imprecise/incorrect word utilization. As of late I have also acquired a penchant for parenthetical “(asides)” as well as the almost flagrant use of “…”
That being said…
To date I have managed to refer to my own “bad grammar” and punctuative affectation as examples of my own ignorance or laziness. I imagine I could always assert that by doing so I am preventing obsolescence of my native language by abusing it “all up in there”. :p
Not saying that I do not find your post to provide excellent food for thought, or that your point is not defensible… Simply, I am finding great pleasure in word-smithing a response.